User:Dustyrose.bloss0m/Hostile architecture

Hostile architecture is an urban-design strategy that uses architectural elements of the built environment to guide and/ or restrict behavior. It targets people in the community who use or rely on public space more than others, such as youth, poor people, and homeless people, by restricting the physical behaviors they can engage in.

The term hostile architecture is often associated with items like "anti-homeless spikes" – studs embedded in flat surfaces to make sleeping on them uncomfortable and impractical and adding different elements like making benches go downwards to prevent people from laying on benches. This form of architecture is most commonly found in densely populated and urban areas. Other measures include sloped window sills to stop people sitting; benches with armrests positioned to stop people lying on them; water sprinklers that spray intermittently; and public trash bins with inconveniently small mouths to prevent the insertion of bulky wastes. Hostile architecture is also employed to deter skateboarding, BMXing, inline skating, littering, loitering, public urination, and trespassing, and as a form of pest control.

Background (Copied)
Although the term "hostile architecture" is recent, the use of civil engineering and architectural to achieve social engineering is not: antecedents include 19th century urine deflectors and urban planning in the United States designed for segregation. American urban planner Robert Moses designed a stretch of Long Island Southern State Parkway with low stone bridges so that buses could not pass under them. This made it more difficult for people who relied on public transportation, mainly African Americans, to visit the beach that wealthier car-owners could visit. Outside of the United States, public space design change for the purpose of social control also has historic precedent: the narrow streets of 19th century Paris, France were widened to help the military quash protests.[better source needed]

Its modern form is derived from the design philosophy crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED), which aims to prevent crime or protect property through three strategies: natural surveillance, natural access control, and territorial enforcement. According to experts, exclusionary design is becoming increasingly common, not least in large cities such as Stockholm.

Consistent with the widespread implementation of defensible space guidelines in the 1970s, most implementations of CPTED as of 2004 were based solely upon the theory that the proper design and effective use of the built environment could reduce crime, reduce fear of crime, and improve quality of life. Built environment implementations of CPTED seek to dissuade offenders from committing crimes by manipulating the built environment in which those crimes proceed or occur. The six main concepts according to Moffat are territoriality, surveillance, access control, image/maintenance, activity support and target hardening. Applying all of these strategies is key when trying to prevent crime in any neighborhood, crime-ridden or not.

Beyond CPTED, scholarly research has also found that modern capitalist cities have a vested interest in eliminating signs of homelessness from their communal spaces, fearing that it might discourage investment from wealthier individuals. In England, much of their hostile architecture has been attributed to a desire by the government to combat an anti-social street scene, taking the form of begging and street drinking.

Identifying hostile architecture (Copied)
Some forms of hostile architecture are easy to identify, while others could be interpreted as either exclusionary or non-exclusionary, such as spaced-out singular chairs constructed at a playground in Sweden, which may appear intentionally designed to dissuade homeless sleeping, or as an acknowledgement that Swedes consider it impolite to sit near strangers. Some researchers have said that hostile architecture should be evaluated within the wider context of the community, and should recognize the social and political forces motivating a particular design choice, such as anti-homelessness legislation or sentiments.